by publius
I don't read Maureen Dowd much for a variety of health and digestive tract-related reasons. But Amanda Marcotte articulates the problem with Dowd as succinctly as anyone I've read:
[Today's Dowd op-ed is] a classic example of her worst impulse to think that she’s speaking for the common man by assuming that the common man is 100% douchebag. This is empathy, you know. Her low opinion of the great unwashed flyover masses really shines in this quote[.]
Captures it pretty nicely, no? You begin with a bitter contempt for people, and then spend your days complaining about what your imaginary cretins think about, say, arugula.
"[Today's Dowd op-ed is]"
Is it too much trouble to ask you to link to it?
Ok, it's here.
Perhaps you could explain what specifically you dislike about the column?
"[Today's Dowd op-ed is] a classic example of her worst impulse to think that she’s speaking for the common man by assuming that the common man is 100% douchebag."
Which sentences? How, exactly, do you believe Dowd is expressing this?
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 28, 2008 at 06:17 PM
gary - it's meant as a more general description of dowd's MO. today's op-ed isnt all that relevant. I just didn't want to chop that last sentence off halfway through.
sorry if i was unclear
Posted by: publius | July 28, 2008 at 06:28 PM
Y'know, I had no idea what Marcotte was talking about until I read the Dowd column. She left out most of the good homoerotic quotes. As a dog-whistle, this is an ambulence siren.
I'm not entirely sure MoDo means to sneer at Teh Gay, tho. Seems more to generally sneer at enthusiasm, period. So unseemly and irrational, y'know. I do think it's a hostile column, but not aimed at the common man. If anything, the message is to the intelligentsia: this man is sexy, he likes expensive cars, he works out, he's a sucker for pretty blondes --> he is Not One Of Us.
Posted by: trilobite | July 28, 2008 at 07:30 PM
Uh, I know PLENTY of inteligentsia who are suckers for pretty blondes. And blonds.
Posted by: gwangung | July 28, 2008 at 07:46 PM
I really dislike Maureen Dowd. I think of her as at best entertainment and at worst a waste of everyone's time. And here's the thing: politics *shouldn't* be entertainment.
Has anyone noticed just how snarky the MSM has been about this trip? And I won't even mention the redstaters, whose commentary has just been pathetic.
If Obama gets treated like a rock star in Europe, people seem resentful, if not envious. If the trip had flopped, columnists would have wallowed in that with glee.
If things continue to go this smoothly, I worry that Schadenfreude might take over, and people will vote against Obama just to see him lose.
Posted by: Ara | July 28, 2008 at 08:37 PM
I would like to say that I have no idea what either Dowd or Marcotte is talking about.
I also share Ara's opinion of Dowd.
To answer Gary's question, what I dislike about Dowd's column is that it is valueless. It contains no information, no insight, no humor, and is, to quote Bull Durham, "self-indulgent, overrated crap."
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | July 28, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Your random ranting at Dowd is even more information free than her column. Pot meet kettle.
Posted by: Mo MoDo | July 28, 2008 at 11:15 PM
rant? what is that post, 4 sentences?
publius is pithy, which brings a whole separate set of problems. but no one with a fair mind would say she rants.
look, someone has to tell the NYTimes that Dowd is ineffective and yet not worth the time to give a substantive critique.
and here publius strikes the right balance.
Posted by: redwood | July 29, 2008 at 12:28 AM
THank you, Ms. Dowd.
Posted by: gwangung | July 29, 2008 at 12:31 AM
If you don't get what Publius & Amanda are saying, it may be because you don't read enough Dowd. Her columns during the Democratic primary, for instance, largely consisted of "Guess what I just thought of? Hillary is so butch that she makes Obama look even faggier than he already is!"
In fact, any given column contains three elements, in various combinations:
1) "Playing with gender stereotypes", by which she means consistently calling Dem politicians gay regardless of gender.
2) A healthy dose of self-congratulation for being such a witty, connected urbanite.
3) A bit of Friedman-esque empathy for the common man, usually revealed in the assumption that America hates gay people.
Posted by: Robert M. | July 29, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Maureen Dowd reminds me of the popular girls in my 1950's junior high school: not particularly bright or amusing, but chosen by some unseen hand to be the arbiters of who/what was "in" and who/what was "out". I don't read Dowd very often, because she brings back too many memories of how irrationally I longed to fit in with these airheads when I was 11 years old. No wonder the U.S. elects turkeys like GWB if Dowd's dyspeptic musings pass for "political commentary".
Posted by: MandyW | July 29, 2008 at 02:24 PM
Robert M.,
Thanks for the explanation. It's true I seldom read Dowd, especially since her nastiness about Gore. When I do I am generally puzzled by what she is after.
Your explanation makes me think my description of this column - "It contains no information, no insight, no humor, and is, to quote Bull Durham, 'self-indulgent, overrated crap,' " describes many others as well.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | July 29, 2008 at 04:14 PM
Shouldn't this post be titled, "My MoDo Problem....and Yours"?
Posted by: John | July 29, 2008 at 09:40 PM